9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferable to such gifted portion as on January 1, 1954?" (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no case for enhancement of capital gains as proposed by the Income-tax Officer ?" Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual and the proceedings relate to the assessment year 1965-66. The assessee sold a plot of land admeasuring 3,125 sq. yards and a structure thereon during the previous year for a sum of Rs. 3,90,625. He computed the capital gain on this transaction at Rs. 1,36,946 by estimating the market value of the property as on January 1, 1954, at Rs. 2,16,250. This was on the basis of a valuer's report. There was no dispute that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question was purchased by his father on November 1, 1946, at a distress sale for a sum of Rs. 79,999, that the prices of land had substantially gone up during the period of 11 years between 1946 and 1957, and that, therefore, it was inconceivable that such a property would be sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 45,000 in the year 1957. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner accepted the assessee's claim that the fair market value of the property was required to be estimated as on November 1, 1954. However, accepting the Income-tax Officer's estimate of the fair market value, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the computation of the capital gain at Rs. 2,40,071 as originally made by the Income-tax Officer. The Department filed an appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s justified in holding that 2/3rds of the property was a gift and, as such, there was justification for estimating its fair market value as on January 1, 1954. Speaking for ourselves, we are more than convinced that in view of the fact that the property was purchased by the assessee's father in the year 1946 at a distress sale for a sum of Rs. 79,999 and that the prices of the immovable property have, it is not seriously disputed, risen considerably during the intervening period of 11 years and that yet the property was shown as sale by the father to the assessee during the period of marz-ul-maut for paltry sum of Rs. 45,000, the transaction was shown as a sale merely to avoid complications in making a gift during the period of marz-ul-maut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
